■ci'!t';;(*-','-.i'--';ft'iie\ 


H6 
A35 


A 

A 

0 

===  c- 

0 

^=^=   JD 

0 

=— :c    . 

2 
9 
0 

— '"  i 

1 

— g 

6 

4 

— ! 

3 

s 

brnia 
lal 

y 


LIBRARY  ' 

UNIVERSITY  Oil 
CALIFORNIA 
SAN  D|Ceo 


)'•./  V:. 


THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  SAN  D1E60 

LA  JOLLA,  CALIFORNIA 


CORHESPONDENCE 


BETWEEN 


ROGER   SHERMAN  AND   SAMUEL   HOPKINS. 


From  Proceedings  of  the  American  Antiquarian  Society, 
October  22,  1888, 


WORCESTER,  MASS.,  U.  S.  A. 

PRESS    OF    CHARLES     HAMILTON, 

311    Main    Street. 

1889. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2008  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/correspondencebeOOslier 


HOPKINSIANISM. 

By  Andrew  P.  Peabody. 


Samuel  Hopkins  was  born  at  Waterbury,  Connecticut,  in 
1721,  graduated  at  Yale  College  in  1741,  was  settled  as  a 
minister  at  Great  Harrington,  then  the  Second  Parish  of 
Sheffield,  Massachusetts,  in  1743,  became  minister  of  the 
First  Congregational  Church  in  Newport,  Ehode  Island,  in 
1770,  and  died  at  Newport  in  1803.  He  was  a  profound 
and  original  thinker,  and  while  never  attractive  as  a 
preacher,  he  exercised,  through  the  press,  an  extensive  and 
by  no  means  short-lived  influence  on  New  England  theology. 
His  system,  while  at  certain  points  it  seemed  Calvinism  in- 
tensified, was,  nevertheless,  a  revolt  against  some  of  the 
dogmas  deemed  fundamental  by  the  Genevan  reformer. 
Dr.  Hopkins  denied  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his 
posterity,  and  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  the  redeemed  ; 
yet  maintained  that  Adam's  posterity  inherited  from  him  a 
sinful  and  ruined  nature,  being  born  sinners,  and  that 
Christ's  righteousness  is  the  meritorious  cause  by  means  of 
which  alone  a  portion  of  the  human  race  are  saved  from 
the  everlasting  punishment  which  all,  even  infants,  deserve 
for  their  sinful  nature,  and  which  also  is  justly  due  as  the 
penalty  for  any  single  sinful  act  or  volition  which,  as  an 
offence  against  the  Infinite  Being,  itself  becomes  infinite. 
Selfishness,  according  to  him,  is  the  essence  of  all  sin,  and 
virtue  consists  in  disinterested  benevolence,  embracing 
every  being  in  the  universe,  God  and  all  his  creatures,  and 
self  only  as  an  infinitesimal  part  of  the  universe.  Thus  so 
far  is   self-love  from  being  the  measure  of  brotherly  love, 


no 


that  love  for  the  remotest  being  in  the  universe  is  the  normal 
measure  of  self-love.  Man,  according  to  the  same  system, 
is  a  free  agent,  that  is,  can  do  as  he  wills,  but  is  morally 
incapable  of  aught  but  evil  before  conversion,  has  a  depraved 
will,  can  do  nothing  toward  his  own  conversion,  sins  in  his 
every  endeavor  to  improve  his  moral  condition,  and  is  en- 
tirely dependent  on  the  supernatural  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  for  his  regeneration. 

The  supreme  purpose  of  God  in  the  creation  of  this  world 
and  of  man,  according  to  Dr.  Hopkins,  was  the  manifesta- 
tion of  his  own  glory,  and  that  glory  can  be  manifested 
only  by  doing  what  he  will  with  his  own.  By  his  very 
nature  he  is  above  all  law,  and  the  laws  which  he  enacts  for 
his  creatures  have  no  claim  on  his  observance.  With  him 
might  creates  right.  From  the  human  race,  sinners  by  the 
depraved  nature  inherited  from  Adam,  and  therefore  merit- 
ing eternal  misery,  he,  in  a  past  eternity,  by  his  own 
arbitrary  decree,  elected  a  certain  number  who  should  be 
rescued  from  perdition,  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
made  partakers  of  heavenly  happiness.  They  were  elected, 
not  because  of  any  foresight  of  their  faith  or  good  works  ; 
but,  being  elected,  they  are  endowed  by  the  irresistible 
grace  of  God  with  the  traits  of  character  that  make  them 
fit  for  heaven.  An  essential  pre-requisite  to  regeneration 
is  the  hearty  approval  of  and  assent  to  the  Divine  sover- 
eignty in  the  arbitrary  election  of  those  that  are  to  be  saved, 
even  to  the  extent  of  a  willingness  to  be  among  those  eter- 
nally lost,  if  the  glory  of  God  so  require.  He  who  is  not 
willing  to  be  damned  is  not  in  a  salvable  condition. 

It  will  be  readily  seen  how  intimately  connected  are  the 
two  points  on  which  Mr.  Sherman  assails  Dr.  Hopkins's 
system.  Self-love  must  of  necessity  be  extinguished,  or 
reduced  to  an  infinitesimal  fragment  of  itself,  before  the 
soul  can  be  willing  to  suffer  everlasting  torment. 

Dr.  Hopkins's  earliest  publication  that  drew  the  attention 
of  theologians  to  his  peculiar  views  was  in  1759,  namely, 


three  sermons  entitled,  "Sin,  through  Divine  Interposi- 
tion, an  Advantage  to  the  Universe,  and  yet  no  Excuse  for 
Sin  or  Encouragement  in  it."  Most  of  his  many  subsequent 
publications^  were  in  maintenance  of  the  ground  then  taken, 
against  antagonists  of  the  older  Calvinistic  school.  Amonff 
these  was  "  An  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  of  true  Holiness," 
published  in  1773,  which  is  the  special  subject  of  Mr.  Sher- 
man's strictures.  He  had  many  disciples,  and  while  among 
the  most  modest  of  men,  without  so  intending,  he  gave  his 
name  to  a  sect. 

For  more  than  half  a  century  Hopkinsianism,  not  only  in 
fact,  but  in  name,  held  a  prominent  place  in  New  England 
theology.  Many  of  the  most  eminent  divines,  for  a 
period  extending  through  the  first  quarter  of  the  present 
century,  were  styled  Hopkinsians.  In  Connecticut  this 
type  of  dogmatic  belief  found  special  favor  and  prevalence, 
and  led  to  several  cases  of  local  dissension  and  controversy^ 
some  of  which  had  a  more  than  local  interest,  and  have  left 
their  record  in  pamphlets  that  had  in  their  time  an  exten- 
sive circulation.  In  Windham  County,  perhaps  in  other 
counties,  it  was  the  occasion  of  a  rupture  in  the  Association 
of  ministers,  a  minority  seceding  from  their  Hopkinsian 
brethren,  and  forming  a  separate  organization. 

The  leading  champion  of  this  system  was  Rev.  Dr.  Em- 
mons, of  Franklin,  Massachusetts,  who  was  unsurpassed, 
perhaps  unequalled,  among  his  contemporaries,  in  conver- 
sance with  the  whole  range  of  polemic  theology,  in  dialectic 
skill,  in  keenness  and  subtilty  as  a  controversalist,  and  in 
close  logical  consistency  in  admitting  the  most  startling  and 
repulsive  inferences  that  could  be  legitimately  drawn  from 
his  premises.  Dying  in  1840,  at  the  age  of  ninety-five, 
he  considered  himself  as  almost  the  last  depository  of  the 


iTJut  not  iill.  He  was  a  pioneer  in  the  anti-slavery  cause,  and  one  of  the  ear- 
liest, so  far  as  I  know  llie  very  earliest  American  publication  in  behalf  of 
emancipation  was  "  A  Dialogu(!,  showinj?  it  to  be  the  Duty  and  Interest  of  the 
American  States  to  emancipate  all  their  African  Slaves,"  published  by  Dr. 
Hopkins,  in  17TG. 


6 

true  faith.  At  his  special  request,  his  funeral  sermon  Avas 
prepared  and  read  for  his  approval,  by  Rev.  Thomas  Will- 
iams, Avho,  after  paying  this  tribute  to  his  venerable  friend, 
regarded  himself  as  the  sole  surviving  Hopkinsian.  In  his 
late  old  age  he  repeatedly  visited  me,  always  with  a  volume 
of  Dr.  Emmons's  sermons  in  his  hand,  and  interspersing 
his  portion  of  our  conversation  with  extracts  from  the  vol- 
ume. He  was  the  only  person  from  whom  I  ever  heard  in 
express  words  the  defence  of  the  doctrine  of  infant  damna- 
tion. But  this  was  his  favorite  theme.  He  had  braced 
himself  up  to  regard  it  with  entire  complacency,  and  to 
consider  it  as  a  peculiarly  resplendent  manifestation  of  what 
he  called  the  Divine  glory,  which,  he  said,  would  l)e  ob- 
scured by  the  admission  to  heaven  of  unconverted  members 
of  a  sinful  race,  though  themselves  guiltless  of  actual  trans- 
gression. 

Hopkinsianism  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  important  stage  of 
progress  from  the  earlier  Calvinism  to  the  new  theology  of 
Andover  and  New  Haven.  In  denying  the  dogmas  of  im- 
puted sin  and  imputed  righteousness,  and  in  affirming  human 
freedom  as  a  metaphysical  certainty,  it  undermined  the 
theology  on  which  previous  generations  had  reposed,  and  in 
jts  intense  stress  on  inevitable,  but  abhorrent  corollaries 
from  other  dogmas  of  that  system  which,  had  not  been 
strongly  emphasized  before,  it  led  to  a  revision  of  the  entire 
system.  It  is  therefore  to  be  accounted  as  holding  a  fore- 
most place  among  the  liberalizing  influences,  which  have  so 
largely  modified  the  (so-called)  orthodoxy  of  New  Eng- 
land, and  of  those  Western  regions  which  have  been  colo- 
nized chiefly  from  New  England. 

Roger  Sherman  is  so  closel}^  identified  with  the  history  of 
the  country  as  to  need  no  prolonged  biographical  notice.  He 
was  on  the  Committee  to  draft  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence of  which  he  was  a  signer,  and  afterwards  served  in  the 
General  Congress  on  several  of  the  most  important  com- 
mittees.    He  was  one  of  the  framers  of  the  Articles  of  the 


Confederation  of  1783,  and  one  of  the  most  eflficient  mem- 
bers of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1787.  He  was  at 
different  times  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Connecticut, 
Treasurer  of  Yale  College,  Mayor  of  New  Haven,  and  Repre- 
sentative and  Senator  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 
Hardly  any  man  ever  filled  so  many  important  offices,  and 
none  certainly,  with  a  more  noble  record  of  ability,  integ- 
rity and  faithfuhiess.  He  was  a  man  of  whose  like  a 
generation  sees  but  few. 

He  was  at  the  same  time  not  only  a  devoutly  religious  man, 
but  active  in  the  religious  movements  of  his  time  and  com- 
munity, an  earnest  inquirer  into  Divine  truth,  and  a  ready 
recipient  of  whatever  seemed  to  him  of  Divine  authority. 
He  held  for  man}'  years  the  office  of  Deacon  in  the  church 
to  which  he  belonged  in  New  Haven. 

While  there  is  not  the  slightest  probability  that  these 
letters  to  Dr.  Hopkins  were  ever  printed  till  now,  they  may 
have  been  more  or  less  circulated  in  manuscript,  as  the  fact 
that  so  eminent  a  layman  had  entered  into  the  controversy, 
would  naturally  have  aroused  curiosity  as  to  his  treatment 
of  it.  In  a  volume  of  "  Sermons  on  Important  Subjects," 
by  Andrew  Lee,  D.D.,  of  Hanover  (now  Lisbon),  Con- 
necticut, there  is  a  sermon  on  the  atrocious  dogma  of 
willingness  to  be  damned  as  essential  to  salvation,  in  which 
he  carries  out  precisely  Mr.  Sherman's  line  of  thought, 
shows  that  damnation  implies  wickedness  no  less  than 
misery,  and  more  than  intimates  that  to  be  willino-  to  incur 
such  a  doom  is  to  deserve  it. 

The  spirit  of  protest  seems  to  have  been  transmitted  in 
Mr.  Sherman's  family.  Rev.  John  Sherman,  his  grandson, 
was  the  first  Connecticut  minister  who  made  profession  of 
Unitarianism,  wrote  the  first  volume  ever  published  in  this 
country  in  defence  of  Unitarianism,  and  founded  the  first 
Unitarian  church  in  the  state  of  New  York. 


ROGER  SHERMAN  TO  SAMUEL  HOPKINS. 

New  York,  June  28,  1790. 


Dear  Sir  :- 


I  have  lately  read  your  book  on  the  nature  of  true  holiness  and  ap- 
prove the  sentiments,  except  in  two  points,  which  do  not  appear  to  me 
well  founded,  and  which  I  think  may  have  a  bad  tendency.  One  is  on 
the  nature  of  self  love;  the  other,  "that  it  is  the  duty  of  a  person  to  be 
vnlling  to  give  up  his  eternal  interest  for  the  Glory  of  God."  I  have 
also  read  a  manuscript  dialogue  between  a  Calvini  stand  Semi-Calvinist 
on  the  latter  subject,  of  which  it  is  said  you  are  the  author.  I  have  care- 
fully attended  to  these  subjects,  and  shall  submit  to  your  consideration 
the  result  of  my  inquiries. 

I  admit  that  self  love  as  you  have  defined  it,  or  selfishness  in  a  depi'aved 
being  that  is  destitute  of  true  virtuous  benevolence  to  others,  is  the 
source  of  moral  evil.  That  this  arises  from  the  want  of  a  good  moral 
taste,  or  spiritual  discernment,  which  occasions  the  person  to  place  his 
happiness  in  wrong  objects.  But  I  consider  self  love  as  a  natural  prin- 
ciple which  exists  in  beings  perfectly  holy,  which  by  the  moral  law  is 
made  the  measure  of  our  love  to  our  neighbor,  and  is  therefore  a  prin- 
ciple distinct  from  general  benevolence  or  love  to  others.  I  define  self 
love  to  be  a  desire  of  one's  own  happiness,  or  a  regard  to  one's  own  in- 
terest, which  I  think  may  be  exercised  in  the  highest  possible  degree 
consistent  with  the  highest  possible  degree  of  disinterested  love  to 
others,  by  wishing  perfect  happiness  to  ourselves  and  others.  I  think 
these  affections  are  distinct  but  not  opposite.  And  in  the  great  fountain 
of  happiness  there  is  a  sufficiency  to  fill  the  capacities  of  all.  You  sup- 
pose that  we  ought  to  love  ourselves  and  others  in  proportion  to  the  im- 
portance of  each  in  the  scale  of  being  in  general.  I  was  for  sometime 
at  a  loss  for  a  scale  by  which  to  ascertain  the  proportion  of  love  due  to 
ourselves  or  others ;  but  I  could  find  none  short  of  the  superlative  degree, 
that  is,  to  wish  to  each  the  highest  possible  degree  of  good  and  happi- 
ness which  they  are  capable  of  enjoying,  and  to  rejoice  in  the  infinite 
happiness  of  the  Deity. 

I  suppose  a  virtuous  person  feels  the  same  kind  of  pleasure  in  the 
good  and  happiness  of  others,  as  in  his  own;  not  from  any  selfish  views 
or  motives,  but  from  a  disposition  to  be  pleased  with  the  happiness  of 
being  in  general ;  this  will  incline  him  to  refrain  from  everything  in- 
jurious to  others,  and  to  do  good  to  all  as  there  may  be  opportunity  and 
occasion ;  and  his  natural  principle  of  self  love,  will  dispose  him  to  pay 
a  due  attention  to  his  own  interest.  And  as  these  affections  are  distinct 
and  may  consistently  be  exercised  in  the  highest  degree  towards  their 
respective  objects,  what  necessity  or  room  is  there  for  degrees  of  com- 
parison, or  the  subordination  of  one  to  the  other?  Both  arc  subject  to 
the  law. — Beneficence  or  doing  good  to  others,  is  not  commensurate  with 
benevolence  towards  them,  for  we  ought  to  exercise  the  highest  degi-ee 


9 

of  benevolence  toward  that  being  to  whom  our  goodness  or  beneficence 
cannot  extend ;  and  the  duty  of  extending  it  to  others  depends  upon  a 
variety  of  circumstances,  so  that  much  wisdom  is  necessary  to  direct  in 
the  proper  application  of  it.  On  the  other  point,  viz.  "that  it  is  the  duty 
of  a  person  to  be  willing  to  give  up  his  eternal  interest  for  the  glory  of 
God."  I  do  not  find  any  such  thing  required  of  any  person  in  the  divine 
law  or  in  the  Gospel ;  but  it  appears  to  me  that  the  contrary  is  enjoined. 
I  admit  that  persons  are  required  to  be  willing  to  give  up  their  temporal 
interest,  and  to  lay  down  their  lives,  when  the  glory  of  God  or  the 
advancement  of  his  kingdom  in  the  world  require  it ;  to  these  all  general 
requirements  of  submission  to  the  Avillof  God  may  be  applied.  The  Old 
Testament  Saints  and  Martyrs  mentioned  in  Heb.  II.  endured  great  suf- 
ferings in  the  cause  of  religion,  but  they  were  limited  to  this  state  of 
trial,  and  they  were  supported  in  them  by  their  faith  in  a  future  state  of 
happiness ;  they  considered  that  they  had  in  heaven  a  better,  and  an  en- 
during substance,  but  though  they  had  respect  to  this  recompense  of 
reward,  yet  their  love  to  God  and  religion  was  not  founded  in  selfish 
principles,  but  they  loved  them  for  their  own  amiableness  and  intrinsic 
excellence ;  and  in  the  exercise  of  this  disinterested  love,  consisted  their 
happiness  and  reward,  as  well  as  their  duty.  And  in  Heb.  12.  2.  where 
Jesus  Christ  is  referred  to  as  our  example,  it  is  said  "That  for  the  joy 
that  was  set  before  him  he  endured  the  cross,"  etc.  The  whole  tenor  of 
the  gospel  appears  to  me  to  be  against  a  person  being  willing  to  be 
damned  on  any  consideration.  God  commands  all  men  everywhere  to 
repent.  He  also  commands  them  to  liclieve  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  has  assured  us  that  all  who  do  repent  and  believe  shall  be  saved. 
And  his  voice  to  impenitent  sinners  is,  not,  be  willing  to  l)e  damned,  but 
Turn  ye.  turn  ye,  Jrora  your  evil  ti^i/s ;  for  rohy  vnll  ye  die?  How  do  I 
know  of  any  direction  or  example  in  the  Bible  for  praying  for  Spiritual 
or  eternal  blessings,  with  a  willingness  to  be  denied  on  any  consideration. 
But  God  allows  his  people  to  pray  for  them  absolutely  and  has  absolutely 
promised  to  bestow  them  on  all  those  who  are  willing  to  accept  them  on  the 
terms  of  the  gospel,  that  is,  in  a  way  of  free  grace  through  the  atonement. 
'■•Ask  and  ye  shall  receive.  Whosoever  will,  let  Mm  come  and  take  of  the 
waters  of  life  freely.  Him  that  cometh  unto  me  Itoill  in  no  wise  cast  out.'' 
But  there  are  no  such  absolute  promises  as  to  the  bestowment  of  temporal 
favors.  It  is  impossible  that  it  should  l)e  for  the  glory  of  God,  or  con- 
sistent with  the  gospel  dispensation  to  punish  with  endless  misery  any 
man  who  has  a  supreme  love  to  God,  and  regard  for  his  glory,  wliich  in 
this  case  is  held  out  as  the  motive  to  be  willing  to  be  damned.  It  also 
involves  in  it  this  absurdity,  that  a  person  ought  to  be  willing  to  be  fixed 
in  a  state  of  eternal  enmity  to  God,  fi*om  a  principle  of  supreme  love  to 
him. 

The  reason  Avliy  any  of  the  human  race  are  subjected  to  endless  punish- 
ment, is,  because  tlaey  have  sinned  and  vohmtarily  continue  finally  im- 
penitent, which  is  wholly  their  own  fault.  And  God  has  declared  tliathe 
has  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked ;  but  that  the  wicked  turn 


10 

from  his  way  and  live.  Ezek.  33.  11.  Is  this  consistent  with  his  requir- 
ing them  to  be  willing  to  continue  in  sin  and  perish  forever;  for  none 
can  be  damned  who  do  not  persevere  in  sin?  I  admit  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  all  to-  acknowledge  that  the  divine  law  which  requires  us  to  love  God 
with  all  our  heart  and  our  neighbor  as  ourselves,  on  pain  of  eternal 
damnation  is  holy,  just  and  good ;  and  I  suppose  that  the  conscience  of 
every  sinner  who  shall  be  finally  condemned  by  the  law,  will  witness  to 
the  justice  of  the  sentence,  and  that  seems  to  ))e  sufficient  to  answer  the 
ends  of  government,  Avithout  his  being  willing  to  suffer  the  punishment. 
While  in  a  state  of  probation  sinners  are  required  to  turn  and  live,  which 
appears  to  me  inconsistent  with  their  being  required  to  be  willing  to  be 
damned.  And  I  believe  that  it  is  naturally  impossible  for  any  moral  agent 
to  be  willing  to  be  separated  from  all  good,  to  all  evil,  and  if  so,  it  can't 
be  his  duty.  The  revealed  law  of  God  is  the  rule  of  our  duty  and  it  may 
be  his  will  to  suffer  events  to  take  place  with  respect  to  us,  which  it 
would  be  sinful  in  us  to  be  willing  should  take  place  with  respect  to  our- 
selves. For  instance,  it  is  the  will  of  God  to  sufler  the  Saints  during 
their  continuance  in  this  life  to  be  imperfect  in  holiness,  yet  it  is  their 
duty  to  be  perfect,  nor  ought  they  to  be  willing  to  be  unholy  in  any  re- 
spect or  degree,  for  that  would  be  a  willingness  to  transgress  the  divine 
law,  and  would  be  sinful.  The  like  might  be  observed  respecting  all 
the  sins  which  ever  have  been,  or  shall  be  committed  in  the  world,  and 
God  overrules  all  these  for  good,  yet  neither  God's  suffering  sin  to  take 
place,  or  his  overruling  it  for  good,  can  excuse  any  person  in  the  com- 
mission of  sin,  much  less  make  it  his  duty  to  be  willing  to  commit  it. 
.This  is  fully  illustrated  in  your  sermons  on  "Sin  the  occasion  of  great 
good !" 

Mr.  Calvin's  comment  on  the  words  of  Saint  Paul,  Rom.  9.  3.  is 
quoted  in  support  of  the  lawfulness  of  being  willing  to  be  damned ;  but 
Calvinists  do  not  found  their  faith  on  the  authority  of  his  opinions,  that 
would  be  to  entertain  an  opinion  contrary  to  his,  viz..  That  the  word  of 
God  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  in  matters  of  religion.  Expositors  differ  as 
to  the  meaning  of  those  words  of  Saint  Paul,  but  if  they  import  what 
Mr.  Calvin  supposes,  may  they  not  be  considered  as  an  hyperbole  which 
is  never  understood  to  be  literally  true?  And  the  occasion  on  which  they 
were  spoken  was  only  to  express  in  strong  terms  the  Apostle's  great 
affection  for  his  nation  and  concern  for  their  spiritual  welfare.  Besides 
every  wish  of  a  good  man  is  not  a  good  wish.  Moses  in  a  like  expres- 
sion, Exod.  32.  32.  seems  not  fully  to  have  met  with  the  divine  appro- 
bation, as  appears  by  the  answer,  verse  33.  "And  the  Lord  said  imto 
Moses  whosoever  hath  sinned  against  me,  him  will  I  blot  out  of  my 
book." — Holy  David  was  displeased  because  the  Lord  had  made  a  breach 
upon  TJzza.  And  the  jiious  prophet  Jonah  was  angry  Ijecause  the  Lord 
spared  Nineveh.  And  patient  Job  had  some  impatient  wishes  that  would 
not  be  justified. 

But  if  Mr.  Glasse's  exposition  of  Rom.  9.  3.  is  admitted  it  will  remove 


11 

the  difficulty,  that  is,  that  lie   himself  once  had  wished  anathema  to 
Christ,  etc. 

It  is  further  said  in  support  of  this  opinion,  that  a  number  of  mankind 
will  eventually  suffer  endless  punishment,  and  that  all  holy  beiniys  will 
approve  the  judgment  of  God  therein,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  approved 
by  all.  But  can  it  be  inferred  from  hence  that  it  was  the  duty  of  those 
unhappy  persons  while  in  a  state  of  probation  to  be  willing  to  persevere  in 
sin  and  suffer  the  just  consequences  of  it?  Are  they  not  punished  be- 
cause they  were  willing  to  continue  in  sin?  And  does  God  punish  his 
creatures  for  doing  their  duty?  Or  can  it  be  inferred,  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  a  person  possessed  of  true  holiness,  to  be  willing  to  apostatize  from 
his  holiness,  and  abandon  himself  to  wickedness  and  so  plunge  himself 
into  endless  misery. 

It  is  said  that  it  is  necessary  to  be  willing  to  be  damned,  if  it  should  be 
God's  will  and  for  his  glory,  to  evince  that  our  love  to  God  is  supreme 
and  disinterested ;  but  would  not  the  aflection  expressed,  Psalm  73.  25. 
"Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee  and  there  is  none  upon  earth  that  I 
desire  besides  thee,"  etc.,  be  a  much  better  evidence  of  the  sincerity 
and  disinterestedness  of  our  love  to  God,  than  to  be  willing  to  be  for- 
ever separated  from  his  favourable  presence  and  fixed  in  a  state  of 
emnity  to  him  for  our  own  voluntary  transgression  and  impenitence. 

These  few  imperfect  hints  will  communicate  to  you  my  idea  on  the 
subjects,  and  if  I  am  mistaken  I  wish  to  be  enlightened.  I  had  not  the 
book  or  manuscript  before  me  when  I  wrote  this,  so  that  in  my  refer- 
ence to  them,  I  do  not  recite  the  words,  but  state  the  sense  according  to 
my  best  recollection.     I  am,  &c. 

ROGER  SHERMAN. 


SAMUEL  HOPKINS  TO  ROGER  SHERMAN. 

Newport,  Aug.  2,  1790. 

Dear  Sir  : 

I  am  gratified,  and  think  myself  honored  by  your  address  of  the  28t]i 
of  June  last.  I  am  pleased  with  your  particular  attention  to  the  subject 
upon  which  you  write,  and  the  ingenuity  manifested  in  Avhat  you  have 
written.  But  your  diflcring  in  judgment  from  me,  and  especially  your 
thinking  my  senthnents  may  have  a  bad  tendency,  cannot  be  but  dis- 
agreeable to  me.  However,  as  I  apprehend  my  real  sentiments  are  in 
some  respects  mistaken ;  and  that  what  I  have  advanced  on  those  points 
can  be  supported  by  Scripture  and  reason ;  and  not  doubting  of  your 
uprightness  and  candour,  I  urn  encouraged  to  write  you  on  the  snl)jects 
in  dispute. 
5 


12 

The  self  love  wliich  I  have  defined,  in  mj^  tract  on  the  nature  of  true 
holiness,  and  discai-ded,  as  "wholly  opposed,  in  every  degree  of  it,  to  the 
divine  law,  and  to  that  universal,  disinterested  benevolence,  in  which 
all  holiness  consists, — this  self  love  you  suppose  to  be  a  natural  principle 
of  human  nature,  and  perfectly  innocent,  though  exercised  in  the  highest 
possible  degree;  and  is  really  "subject  to  the  law  of  God,"  as  much  as 
universal  benevolence,  and  consequently  must  be  a  holy  aflfection,  I  think. 
This,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  is  the  difference  between  us  on  this  point. 

In  support  of  my  sentiment,  and  in  opposition  to  the  contrary,  I  take 
leave  to  propose  the  following  eonsiderations. 

I.  There  cannot  be  any  need  of  self  love,  supposing  it  to  be  an  inno- 
cent afl'ection ;  and  it  can  answer  no  good  end,  where  universal,  disin- 
terested benevolence  is  exercised  in  a  proper  degree.  And  there  is,  in- 
deed, no  room  for  the  former,  where  the  latter  is  perfect. 

Universal  benevolence  extends  to  being  in  general  as  its  object, 
and  wishes  the  greatest  possible  happiness  of  the  whole :  And 
the  greatest  possible  happiness  of  every  individual  being,  capable 
of  happiness,  so  far  as  is  consistent  with  the  greatest  happiness  of 
the  whole.  The  benevolent  person  is  himself  the  object  of  his  uni- 
versal benevolence,  as  really  as  any  other  being ;  and  for  the  same  reason 
that  he  wishes  the  greatest  possible  happiness  to  being  in  general,  he 
wishes  the  greatest  possible  happiness  to  himself,  as  included  in  being 
in  general.  This  is  necessary ;  for  to  suppose  otherwise  is  a  direct  con- 
tradiction. Love  to  being  in  general  necessarily  regards  and  Avishes  the 
greatest  possible  happiness  to  him  who  exercises  this  love.  This  is  not, 
indeed,  self  love,  which  is  a  regard  for  one's  self,  as  self,  and  as  distin- 
guished from  all  others,  and  to  no  other  being ;  but  it  is  the  same  dis- 
interested affection  which  wishes  the  highest  happiness  to  every  indi- 
vidual, included  in  being  in  general ;  and  therefore  to  himself,  as  neces- 
sarily included  in  the  whole,  and  one  among  other's. 

What  need  then  can  there  be  of  self  love?  It  can  do  no  more  than  wish 
and  seek  the  greatest  happiness  of  the  person  who  exercises  it :  But 
this  the  reasona1)le  and  noble  affection  of  universal,  disinterested  bene- 
volence will  do  in  the  best  and  luost  perfect  manner.  Self  love  is  ex- 
cluded as  wholly  needless,  at  best;  and  there  appears  to  be  no  use  or 
room  for  it  in  the  mind  exercising  love  to  the  being  in  general.  To 
suppose  two  distinct  and  different  kinds  of  love  exercised  by  the  same 
person,  at  the  same  time,  wishing  and  seeking  the  same  greatest  pos- 
sible happiness  to  himself,  is  doubtless  inconceivable,  as  it  is  monstrous 
and  absurd.  This  view  of  the  matter  leads  me  to  suspect  that  thej'  who 
plead  for  self  love  as  a  useful  principle,  as  consisting  in  a  person's  wish- 
ing his  own  highest  possible  happiness,  and  as  distinct  from  universal 
benevolence,  do  really  mean  that  regaixl  to  our  particular  interest  which 
is  necessarily  included  in  universal  benevolence;  and  which  I  mean  by 
disinterested,  benevolent  affection ;  and  that  the  difference  is  only  in 
words,  and  if  we  could  understand  each  other,  we  should  be  agreed.  To 
prevent  mistakes  of  this  kind,  I  endeavoi'ed  to  explain  what  I  meant  by 


13 

self  love,  and  opposite  disinterested  affection,  in  my  inquiry  concerning 
the  nature  of  true  holiness  (Sec.  III.,  IV.)  But  perhaps  have  not  dis- 
tinguished with  sufficient  clearness,  and  therefore  have  not  been  under- 
stood. 

I  agree  that  this  universal  benevolence  is  exercised  "in  the  superla- 
tive degree,"  wishing  the  greatest  possible  happiness  to  the  whole,  and 
to  every  individual,  without  any  "degree  of  comparison,"  so  far  as  is 
consistent  with  the  greatest  good  of  the  vjhole. 

This  leads  to  another  consideration. 

II.  Self  love,  as  distinguished  from  universal  benevolence,  or  dis- 
interested, public  affection,  cannot  be  a  holy  and  innocent  affection ;  but 
must  oppose  the  latter,  because  it  will  not  subordinate  a  person's  own 
private  interest  to  the  general  good ;  or  give  up  any  degree  of  suppos- 
able,  or  possible  personal  happiness,  however  inconsistent  with  the 
greatest  general  good. 

The  greatest  possible  good  of  the  whole  may  not  be  consistent  with 
the  greatest  possible  happiness  of  every  individual,  and  certainly  is  not ; 
for  if  it  were  none  would  suffer  evil ;  and  certainly  there  would  be  no 
individuals  miserable  forever.  And  whenever  the  interest  and  happi- 
ness of  an  individual  is  not  consistent  with  the  greatest  happiness  of 
the  Avhole,  or  an  infinitely  greater  good  than  the  happiness  of  that  par- 
ticular person,  it  is  reasonable  and  desirable  that  the  interest  and  hap- 
piness of  that  individual  should  give  way,  and  be  given  up  for  the  sake 
of  greater  general  good.  And  universal,  disinterested  benevolence  will 
do  this ;  for  it  wishes  and  seeks  the  greatest  good  of  the  whole,  and  of 
individuals,  so  far  as  is  consistent  with  this,  and  no  further,  and  there- 
fore subordinates  the  interest  of  individuals  to  the  greater  and  more 
important  general  interest  and  happiness.  But  self  love  which  desires 
and  seeks  nothing  but  the  greatest  possible  happiness  of  himself,  and 
has  not  the  least  regard  to  the  happiness  of  the  whole,  or  of  any  other 
being  but  his  own  self,  will  not  subordinate  his  OAvn  intei'est  and  happi- 
ness to  any  other  interest  whatever;  or  be  willing  to  give  up  any  degree 
of  liis  own  personal  interest  and  happiness,  for  the  sake  of  the  greater 
happiness  of  the  public,  or  of  any  otlier  being.  Therefore  tliis  self  love 
always  opposes  universal  benevolence,  and  the  latter  is,  in  the  nature  of 
it,  contrary  to  the  former,  and  directly  opposes  and  counteracts  it.  And 
so  far  as  the  latter  takes  place  in  the  heart,  the  other  is  weakened  and 
rooted  out.  And  perfect  universal  benevolence  is  inconsistent  with  every 
degree  of  self  love.  What  can  be  more  evident  than  this?  The  conse- 
quence is,  that  self  love  is  unreasonable  and  sinful  in  every  degree  of  it 
and  cannot  be  reconciled  with  universal  l)enevolence. 

III.  Self  love  cannot  be  a  holy  or  right  affection,  or  agree  or  consist  with 
holy  affection,  because  it  does  not  desire  or  seek,  or  even  discern  tliat  in 
which  real  good  and  happiness  consists ;  but  the  contrary. 

If  this  be  true  of  self  love,  and  can  be  made  evident,  all  must  grant 
that  it  is  in  its  own  nature  an  evil  and  vicious  affection,  and  directly 
opposed  to   universal  benevolence,  wliich  discerns  and  seeks  the  only 


14 

true  happiness  of  all,  and  that  to  the  hiajhest  degree,  so  far  as  is  con- 
sistent with  the  greatest  possible  happiness  of  the  whole. 

Yon,  Sir,  "Admit  that  self  love  in  a  depraved  being,  is  the  source  of 
moral  evil.  That  this  arises  from  the  want  of  a  good  moral  taste,  or 
spiritual  discernment,  which  occasion  the  person  to  place  his  happiness 
in  wrong  objects."  ^ 

Is  it  not  unintelligible  if  not  a  contradiction,  to  say  that  "Self  love, 
in  a  depraved  being,  is  the  source  of  moral  evil?  "  Is  not  moral  depravity 
moral  evil?  This,  according  to  your  position,  must  take  place  previous 
to  self  love  becoming  the  source  of  moral  evil,  and  in  order  to  it.  Is  it 
not  too  late  for  self  love,  or  anything  else  to  be  the  source  of  moral  evil, 
after  moral  evil  exists  in  the  mind,  in  its  full  strength?  Besides,  if  the 
above  were  consistent,  is  it  not  perfectly  unaccountable  that  self  love,  if 
it  be  a  perfectly  good  and  innocent  affection,  should  be  the  positive,  pro- 
ductive source  or  fountain  of  moral  evil ;  and  yet  continue  itself,  inno- 
cent and  good,  in  all  the  exercises  of  it? 

But  to  drop  all  this,  upon  the  above  position  the  following  questions 
may  be  asked. 

Question  1.  Hoav  can  the  mere  want  of  a  good  moral  taste,  or  spiritual 
discernment,  occasion  a  person  to  place  his  happiness  in  wrong  objects? 
It  is  easily  seen  that  the  want  of  a  good  moral  taste  will  prevent  a 
person  placing  his  happiness  in  I'ight  objects,  or  those  objects  which  are 
suited  to  make  him  truly  happy.  But  actually  to  place  his  happiness  in 
wrong  objects,  supposes  not  only  the  want  of  a  good  moral  taste,  but  a 
positively  wrong  or  bad  moral  taste.  Whence  arises  this  positive  wrong 
moral  taste,  which  leads  a  person  to  place  his  happiness  in  wrong 
oljjects?  It  cannot  be  the  production  of  the  want  of  a  good  moral 
taste;  for  a  mere  negative  can  produce  nothing  that  is  positive.  If  there 
be  nothing  wrong  in  self  love;  but  it  is  a  perfectly  right  and  good 
affection  in  every  degree  of  it,  and  in  its  greatest  possil)le  strength ;  then 
this  cannot  be  the  source  or  cause  of  a  wrong  moral  taste.  And  if  the 
absence  or  want  of  a  right  moral  taste  cannot  be  the  cause  of  a  positive 
wrong  moral  taste ;  from  what  quarter  or  source  can  this  come? 

Question  2.  In  what  does  a  right  and  good  moral  taste  consist?  It 
must  consist  in  self  love,  or  in  disinterested  benevolence,  for  there  is 
no  other  moral  disposition  or  affection  in  the  mind  of  a  moral  agent  but 
these,  or  that  is  not  implied  in  them.  And  I  conclude  it  consists  in  the 
latter.  That  so  far  as  the  heart  is  formed  to  disinterested  benevolence, 
so  far  it  has  a  right  moral  taste,  or  spiritual  discernment.  And  he  who 
is  "destitute  of  all  disposition  to  virtuous  benevolence  to  others"  is 
destitnte  of  all  right  moral  taste.  But  if  self  love  be  right  and  good 
in  a  moi'al  sense,  why  is  that  destitute  of  all  right  moral  taste?  Or 
why  does  a  wrong  taste,  which  consists  in  moral  blindness  and  delusion, 
and  places  happiness  in  wrong  objects,  take  place,  and  lead  the  mind 
astray,  where  there  is  nothing  but  self  love? 

These  questions  cannot  ])e  answered  to  satisfaction,  I  believe,  or  the 
subject  be  cleared  of  insuperable  difficulties  in  any  way,  but  1)y  adopt- 


15 

ing  the  proposition  above  asserted,  viz.  :  That  self  love  does  not  discern, 
relish  and  seek  that  good  in  which  trne  happiness  consists ;  bnt  the 
contrary,  which  is  the  same  as  to  say,  that  it  is  directly  opposed  to  all 
right  moral  taste  or  spiritual  discernment ;  and  is  itself  wrong  moral 
taste,  in  which  all  moral  blindness  consists ;  and  which  necessarily 
excludes  all  true  moral  discernment.  Therefore  it  knows  not,  nor  can 
know,  what  true  happiness  is;  but  places  it  in  wrong  objects,  in  that  in 
which  it  does  not  consist,  and  pursues  it  in  opposition  to  God,  and  the 
general  good ;  and  even  the  real  good  of  the  person  who  is  under  the 
dominion  of  it. 

That  this  is  the  truth  may  be  argued  from  the  nature  of  self  love. 
It  excludes  being  in  general  fi-om  the  mind.  It  has  no  eye  to  see  it,  no 
true  discerning  of  it,  or  feeling  toM^ards  it.  Therefore  it  excludes  all 
regard  to.  God,  the  sum  of  all  being.  It  has  no  true  idea  of  disinter- 
ested universal  benevolence ;  consequently  is  wholly  in  the  dark  with 
regard  to  holiness,  the  only  happiness  and  beauty  of  the  moral  world; 
and  has  not  the  least  degree  of  taste  and  relish  for  it ;  but  contrary. 
It  contracts  the  mind  down  to  one  infinitely  little,  diminutive  object, 
which  is  as  nothing,  compared  with  imiversal  being ;  and  feels  as  if 
this  little  object  was  all  that  is  worthy  of  regard.  The  constant  language 
of  this  atfection  is,  "I  am,  and  none  else  besides  me."  This  is  to  love 
and  make  the  greatest  lie  possible ;  and  is  the  sum  of  all  moral  darkness 
and  delusion.  Surely  such  an  affection  excludes  all  perception  of  true 
enjoyment  and  happiness ;  and  all  desire  and  taste  for  it ;  and  necessarily 
includes  as  essential  to  it,  a  perfectly  wrong  taste,  and  pursuit  of 
happiness ;  placing  it  wholly  in  wrong  objects,  where  it  is  not  to  be 
found.  And  who  can  doi;bt  that  such  an  afl"ection  is  the  epitome  and 
source  of  all  moral  evil? 

But  what  the  Scripture  reveals  on  this  point,  is  more  to  be  relied 
upon;  and  that  coincides  Avith  and  confirms  tlie  reasoning  above.  Ac- 
cording to  that,  all  right  taste  and  spiritual  discerning  consists  in  love, 
or  disinterested  benevolence.  "Every  one  that  loveth,  knoweth  God. 
He  that  loveth  not  knoweth  not  God."  (1  Joh.  4.  7,  8.)  The  love  here 
intended  appears  from  the  context  to  be  disinterested  benevolence. 
Where  this  is  not,  it  is  said  God  is  not  known.  Consequently  there  is 
no  true  taste  and  spiritual  discerning  with  respect  to  anything  in  the 
moral  world.  "He  that  hateth  his  brother  is  in  darkness,  and  walketh 
in  darkness,  because  that  dark;ness  has  blinded  his  eyes."  (Chap.  2,  11.) 
Wliat  is  it  but  self  love,  or  selfishness  which  hateth  a  brother?  This  is 
here  asserted  to  be  moral  darkness  itself ;  which  darkness  is  not  a  mere 
negative  thing.  It  is  sin.  It  is  a  Avrong,  perverted  taste,  placing  happi- 
ness in  Avrong,  forbidden  objects.  It  puts  light  for  darkness,  ))itter  for 
sweet,  and  sweet  for  bitter. 

The  following  words  of  Christ,  rightly  considered,  Avill  be  found  to 
assert  the  same  thing.  "The  light  of  the  body  is  the  eye;  If  therefore 
thine  eye  be  single,  thy  whole  body  shall  be  full  of  light.  But  if  thine 
eye  be  evil,  thy  Avhole  body  shall  be  fall  of  darkness."    (Mat.  G.  22,  23.) 


16 

Here  all  moral  darkness  (for  it  is  of  this  that  Christ  is  here  speaking:) 
is  said  to  consist  in  the  evil  eye;  which  is  something  positive,  and  not 
merely  the  want  of  a  single  e.ye.  The  evil  eye  is  an  exercise  and 
affection  of  the  heart,  and  is  moral  evil  or  sin;  for  "From  within,  out 
of  the  heart  of  men  proceeds  an  evil  eye."  (Mark  7.  21,  22.)  And  this 
evil  eye  consists  in  self  love  or  selfishness,  as  opposed  to  benevolence 
and  goodness.     (See  Matt.  20.  15,  Deut.  15.  9,  Prov.  23.  6,  28.  22.) 

From  all  this  put  together,  it  appears  that  according  to  Scripture, 
self  love  is  itself  moral  darkness ;  gives  the  mind  a  wrong  taste ;  knows 
not  what  true  happiness  is ;  and  therefore  always  seeks  it  in  a  wrong 
way,  and  in  forbidden  objects;  consequently  is  in  its  nature  opposed  to 
universal  benevolence ;  there  being  no  more  agreement  between  these 
opposite  affections,  than  there  is  between  light  and  darkness,  good  and 
evil. 

IV.  That  self  love  is  in  its  nature  opposed  to  disinterested  love  or 
true  holiness ;  and  therefore  is  moral  evil  itself,  seems  to  be  evident,  in 
that  it  appears  to  be  the  sum  and  source  of  every  evil  affection  of  the 
heart. 

Pride  is  inseparable  from  self  love;  and  I  believe  it  is  impossible  to 
separate  one  from  the  other,  they  being  the  same  affection ;  or  at  least 
the  one  involves  the  other,  if  there  be  any  distinction ;  so  that  if  one 
exists,  the  other  exists  also,  and  If  one  ceases  to  be  exercised,  the  other 
must  cease  also.  He  who  regards  and  loves  himself  only,  does  in  this 
think  too  highly  of  himself;  sets  himself  infinitely  too  high  in  his 
affections  and  feelings  towards  himself.  Self  love  is  the  source  of  all 
the  l)itter  envying  and  strife  in  the  hearts  of  men ;  of  all  the  contention 
and  unrighteousness  among  men ;  and  of  all  the  opposition  to  God  in 
heart  and  conduct.  Wliere  there  is  no  self  love,  none  of  these  things 
can  possibly  exist,  nor  anything  that  is  morally  wrong.  This  I  en- 
deavored to  illustrate,  and  establish  ii^  the  above  mentioned  inquiry,  P. 
28,  29.  And  I  do  not  yet  see  how  it  can  be  proved  not  to  be  agreeable  to 
the  truth. 

V.  That  self  love  is  a  wrong  and  sinful  affection  in  the  nature  and  in 
every  degree  of  it,  is  evident,  in  that  the  holy  Scripture  never  speaks  in 
favor  of  it,  but  condemns  it,  and  requires  men  to  renounce  it. 

When  St.  Paul  undertakes  to  give  the  worst  character  of  men  who 
should  arise,  he  sets  self  love  at  the  head ;  which  no  doubt  includes  all 
the  rest :  "In  the  last  days  perilous  times  shall  come.  For  men  shall  be 
lovers  of  their  own  selves,"  etc.  (2  Tim.  3.  1,  2  etc.)  If  self  love  were  a 
virtuous  or  an  innocent  affection,  it  would  not  be  set  at  the  head  of  a 
catalogue  of  the  most  odious  and  hurtful  vices.  Therefore  the  injunc- 
tion is,  "Let  no  man  seek  his  own;  but  every  man  another's  wealtli." 
(1  Cor.  10.  24.)  This  does  not  forbid  tliem  to  seek  their  own  happiness, 
in  any  view  and  sense  but  directs  them  not  to  seek  it  as  their  ovm  or  in  a 
selfish  way,  under  the  influence  of  self  love,  which  seeks  a  person's 
own  personal  happiness,  and  nothing  else.  Therefore  it  is  said  that 
charity,  or  Christian  love,   "Seeketh  not  her  own."      "Which  is  so   far 


17 

from  including,  that  it  excludes  self  love ;  for  that  seeketh  her  own  and 
nothing  else ;  and  therefore   cannot  be   included   in   Christian  affection. 

When  Christ  says,  "If  any  man  will  come  after  me  let  him  demi  him- 
self" He  asserts  in  the  strongest  terms,  that  self  love  must  be  crossed 
and  renounced,  in  order  to  be  a  Christian ;  for  it  is  impossible  to  tell 
what  self  denial  is,  if  it  do  not  consist  in  crossing  selfishness,  and 
giving  up  what  self  love  seeks.  That  a  man  may  deny  himself  in  the 
exercise  and  gratification  of  self  love,  is  an  express  contradiction ;  for 
this  is  gratifying  and  pleasing  self. 

The  command,  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigli1)or  as  thyself,"  has  been 
supposed  by  some  to  approve  of  self  love,  and  even  to  enjoin  it,  as  a 
measure  by  which  love  to  our  neighbor  is  to  be  regulated.  But  this,  I 
believe  will  appear  to  be  a  mistake,  when  carefully  examined.  He  who 
desires  and  seeks  the  greatest  possible  happiness  for  himself,  and  for 
his  neighl)or,  consistent  with  the  honor  of  God,  and  the  greatest  general 
good,  which  he  does  who  exercises  universal  benevolence,  as  has  been 
shown,  he,  and  he  only,  loves  his  neighbor  as  himself.  He  therefore 
has  no  need  of  the  least  degree  of  that  self  love  which  is  distinct  from  uni- 
versal benevolence,  in  order  to  obey  this  command.  Perfect,  universal 
disinterested  benevolence  is  perfect  obedience  to  it,  and  cannot  possibly 
be  otherwise.  Therefore  nothing  but  disinterested  benevolence  is  here 
commanded,  and  no  other  kind  of  love  is  allowed  or  supposed ;  conse- 
(piently  self  love  is  excluded  hy  this  precept.  The  least  degree  of  that 
self  love  which  seeks  a  man's  own  personal  private  interest  and  happi- 
ness exclusively,  not  having  the  least  regard  to  his  neighbor,  will 
exclude  and  destroy  that  impartiality  which  is  reasonable,  and  consists 
in  loving  his  neighbor  as  himself.  It  necessarily  renders  him  partial  in 
his  own  favor,  and  seeks  his  own  happiness  exclusive  of  his  neighbor's ; 
consequently  does  necessarily  oppose  disinterested,  impartial  affection. 
This  is  particularly  stated  and  considered  in  the  above  mentioned  inquii-y 
(Pages  24:,  25,  26),  which  I  have  not  seen  confuted  or  answered,  and  I 
believe  is  unanswerable. 

[  have  been  the  longer  on  this  point  (perhaps  too  long,  and  to  little 
purpose)  because  it  appears  to  me  to  have  a  close  connection  with  the 
other,  and  if  we  were  agreed  in  tliis,  we  should  not  long  differ  in  judg- 
ment with  respect  to  that  to  which  I  now  turn  my  attention. 

The  question  in  dispute  is  :  Whether  it  be  the  duty  of  any  person  to  be 
willing  to  give  up  his  eternal  interest  for  the  glory  of  God,  and  the 
general  good?  You  say,  Sir,  "I  do  not  find  any  such  thing  required  in 
Divine  law,  or  the  Gospel;  but  it  appears  to  me  that  the  contrary  is 
enjoined." 

I  wish  to  have  the  question  decided  by  tlie  law  and  the  testimony.  I 
api)eal  to  these.  And  if  the  affirmative  cannot  be  proved  by  the  Scrip- 
tures, I  ani  willing  to  give  it  up. 

It  is  granted,  "Tliat  persons  are  reqnired  to  give  uj)  their  temporal  in- 
terest, and  lo  hiy  down  their  lives,  wlun  llic  glory  of  (iod  oi-  the  ad- 
vancement of  Ills  kingdom  in  the  world  re(piirc  it."     If  it  be  reasonable, 


18 

and  persons  are  required  to  give  up  their  temporal  interest,  or  ten 
degrees,  or  one  degree  of  tlieir  interest,  for  tlie  glory  of  God,  and  tlie 
general  good,  and  it  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  universal,  disinterested 
benevolence  not  to  do  this ;  then  if  it  be  equally  necessary  for  the  glory 
of  God,  etc.,  to  give  up  every  degree  or  the  whole  personal  interest,  it  is 
equally  reasonable  to  be  willing  to  do  this,  and  it  must  be  required,  and 
it  is  equally  contrary  to  the  nature  of  this  benevolence  not  to  do  it.  The 
glory  of  God  and  the  greatest  public  good  is  an  interest  of  infinitely 
more  worth  and  importance,  or  an  infinitely  greater  good,  than  the 
Avhole  eternal  interest  of  any  individual  person ;  and  therefore  when  the 
latter  interferes  with  the  former,  and  consequently  it  is  necessary  that 
the  latter  should  be  given  up  to  promote  the  former,  universal  benevo- 
lence will — it  7?atsi5— consent  to  it ;  and  this  is  required,  if  it  ])e  required 
to  give  up  any  degree  of  personal  interest,  to  promote  the  public  good. 
This,  I  conceive,  is  as  clear  demonstration,  as  that  three  and  two  are 
more  than  two  and  two.  This  consequence  cannot  be  avoided  unless  it  be 
by  denying  that  it  ever  is,  or  can  be  necessary  for  the  glory  of  God,  and 
the  greatest  good  of  his  kingdom,  that  the  whole  eternal  interest  of  any 
individual  person  should  be  given  up  and  lost.  But  none  will  deny  this, 
I  presume,  who  believe,  what  is  abundantly  asserted  in  Scripture,  that 
many  of  the  human  race  will  be  miserable  forever ;  for  this  could  not 
take  place,  were  it  not  necessary  for  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  greatest 
good  of  the  whole. 

It  is  said,  this  cannot  be  duty  or  required,  since  all  are  commanded  to 
do  that  which  is  contrary  to  this,  viz.  :  to  repent  and  believe  in  Christ 
and  be  saved,  to  turn  and  live,  etc.  Answer:  No  repentance,  believing 
and  turning  is  required  which  is  contrary  to  supreme  love  to  God ;  and 
consequently  seeking  his  glory  above  all  things,  and  subordinating 
every  other  interest  to  this ;  but  this  love  is  implied  and  required  in 
these  commands.  And  if  a  willingness  to  give  up  a  person's  whole  in- 
terest, if  this  be  necessary  for  the  glory  of  God,  be  not  implied  in  this 
love,  I  will  give  up  the  point,  and  never  plead  for  it  again.  A  person 
must  love  himself  more  than  God,  and  set  his  own  personal  interest 
above  the  interest  and  honor  of  God,  and  therefore  not  love  God  su- 
premely and  with  all  his  heart,  who  is  not  willing  to  give  up  his  whole 
interest,  Avhen  necessary  for  the  highest  interest  of  God  and  his  glory. 
And  so  long  as  he  is  of  this  disposition  he  will  not  repent,  believe  in 
Christ,  or  return  to  God. 

If  it  be  said.  He  knows  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  glory  of  God,  that 
his  eternal  interest  should  be  given  up,  but  the  contrary;  for  God  com- 
mands him  to  repent  and  come  to  Christ  for  life;  and  he  turns  and 
comes,  that  he  may  live,  and  not  die. 

Answer:  His  being  commanded  to  repent,  etc.,  is  no  evidence  tliat  he 
shall  not  live  in  impenitence,  and  perish,  for  many  do  so  whom  God 
commands  to  repent,  to  turn  and  live.  And  he  knows  not  that  he  shall 
ever  turn  and  come  to  Christ,  until  he  knows  he  has  actually  turned  and 
come,  and  therefore  cannot  know  that  he  shall  not  be  cast  ofl",  and  that 


19 

this  is  not  necessary  for  the  glory  of  God.  Therefore  in  the  first  act  in 
which  he  returns  and  comes  to  Christ,  he  comes,  not  Ivnowing  that  he 
does  come,  for  this  can  be  known  only  by  reflecting  on  what  he  does,  or 
has  done.  He  comes  to  a  Sovereign  God  and  Saviour,  not  knowing  that 
it  is  not  necessary  that  he  should  perish  forever,  for  the  glory  of  God, 
and  casts  himself  at  the  foot  of  Christ,  who  has  mercy  on  ivhoni  he  will 
hare  mercy,  and  vhom  he  v:ill  he  harcleneth  ;  and  cordially  submits  to  this 
Sovereign  God  and  Saviour,  and  is  willing  to  be  in  his  hand,  not  know- 
ing but  it  may  be  most  for  his  glory  to  cast  him  ofl',  and  not  desiring  to 
be  saved,  if  this  cannot  be  consistent  with  the  glory  of  God ;  and  on  this 
supposition  gives  up  his  whole  interest.  This  is  the  disposition  in 
which  the  sinner  comes  to  Christ.  And  as  most  Christians  are  not  soon, 
if  ever,  assured  that  they  are  such ;  and  none  perhaps  have  this  assurance 
at  all  times ;  they  thus  submit  to  God,  to  dispose  of  them  as  he  sees  most 
for  his  glory.  And  as  they  increase  in  love  to  God,  this  submission  is 
stronger,  and  more  sensible ;  though  they  may  not  think  this  is  a  being 
Avilling  to  give  up  their  whole  interest  for  the  glory  of  God ;  and  not 
know,  in  this  respect,  what  manner  of  spirit  they  are  of;  yet  this  is  all 
I  mean  by  being  willing  to  be  cast  off,  if  most  for  the  glory  of  God. 
And  I  think  it  impossible  to  love  God,  and  to  come  to  Christ  for  salva- 
tion, without  such  a  disposition  and  a  cordial  submission  to  his  will, 
who  has  mercy  on  whom  he  will  and  hardens  whom  he  will,  while  he 
knows  not  what  is  his  will  concerning  him. 

And  such  a  Christian,  if  he  attain  to  know  he  loves  God,  and  has  this 
submission  to  him,  will  not  by  this  lose  this  disposition;  but  it  will 
increase  as  his  love  to  God  increases ;  and  he  will  more  and  more  sensi- 
bly feel,  that  were  it  not  for  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  greatest  good  of 
his  kingdom,  that  he  should  be  saved,  he  would  have  no  desire,  on  the 
whole,  to  be  saved,  however  desirable  that  be,  in  itself  considered. 

I  observe  it  is  said,  "There  is  no  direction  or  example  in  the  Bible  for 
praying  for  spiritual  or  eternal  blessings  with  a  willingness  to  be  denied, 
on  any  consideration.  But  God  allows  his  people  to  pray  for  them  ab- 
solutely; and  has  absolutely  promised  to  bestow  them  on  all  who  are 
willing  to  accept  of  them  on  the  terms  of  the  Gospel,  that  is,  in  a  way 
of  free  grace  through  the  atonement.     Ask,  and  ye  shall  receive,  etc." 

Answer:  We  are  certainly  directed  to  pray  for  spiritual  and  eternal 
l)lessings,  with  resignation  to  the  will  of  God,  be  that  what  it  may; 
wliich  implies,  and  really  is,  a  willingness  to  be  denied,  if  what  we  pray 
for  be  contrary  to  the  will  of  God  to  give,  and  not  consistent  with  his 
glory,  and  the  general  good.  We  must  knoio  that  we  ask  for  things 
agreeable  to  his  will.  That  is,  we  mnst  knoAv  that  it  is  his  will  to  grant 
them  before  we  can  ask  for  them  absolutely,  and  without  any  condition. 
For  if  we  ask  absolutely  for  anything,  when  we  know  not  that  it  is  tlie 
will  of  God  to  give  it,  we  set  up  our  own  will,  while  we  know  not  that  it 
is  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God ;  which  must  be  the  highest  arrogance, 
rebellion  and  stubbornness. 

It  will  be  said.  We  know  it  is  the  will  of  God  to  give  Spiritual  and 
4 


20 

eternal  blessings  to  all  who  ask  for  them,  because  he  has  promised  to  do 
it.  "Ask,  and  ye  shall  receive."  Therefore  we  know,  when  we  pray  for 
those  blessings,  it  is  his  will  to  give  them ;  and  consequently  we  may 
ask  absolutely,  not  Avilling  to  be  denied  on  any  consideration ;  because 
we  know  that  God  is  not  willing  to  deny  us. 

Answer :  All  praying,  and  asking,  is  not  asking  in  the  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture. We  must  know  that  we  ask  in  truth,  agreeable  to  the  true  import 
of  direction  and  command,  before  we  can  know  that  it  is  the  will  of  God 
to  grant  those  blessings.  But  this  we  cannot  know  until  we  have  first 
asked,  if  we  do  then.  Therefore  we  must  first  ask  before  we  can  know 
it  is  the  will  of  God  to  grant  the  blessings  for  which  we  ask ;  and  there- 
fore may  not  ask  absolutely.  And  how  few  are  there  who  absolutely 
know  they  have  ever  asked  for  spiritual  blessings,  so  as  to  be  entitled  to 
the  promise?  None  but  assured  Christians  do  know  this.  How  few  are 
they !  Perhaps  not  one,  at  all  times.  From  tliis  view,  I  think  it  follows, 
that  the  prayer  which  entitles  to  saving  blessings  is  never  made  abso- 
lutely, or  without  submission,  not  knowing  whether  it  be  the  will  of  God 
to  grant  the  things  which  are  asked,  or  not ;  and  that  a  person  cannot 
know  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  to  give  him  spiritual  blessings,  till  he  has 
thus  submissively  asked,  and  upon  reflection  knows  that  he  has  done  it. 
And  that,  in  this  case,  an  unsubmissive  asking  is  a  wicked  asking,  which 
surely  does  not  entitle  to  the  promise.  And  that  no  person  who  does  not 
know  he  has  asked  submissively,  can  know  that  he  shall  be  saved,  or  ask 
saving  blessings  absolutely,  without  asking  wickedly.  And  if  he  know 
that  he  has  first  asked  submissively,  and  has  obtained  spiritual  blessings, 
and  so  can  now  ask  absolutely,  knowing  it  is  the  will  of  God  to  save 
him;  he  can  with  truth  say,  "Lord,  thou  hast  been  pleased  to  give  me 
saving  blessings,  and  I  know  it  is  thy  will,  and  for  thy  glory  that  I 
should  be  saved ;  but  if  this  were  not  thy  will,  and  for  thy  glory,  but  the 
contrary  ;  salvation  would  not  be  desirable  to  me,  in  this  view  of  it.  I 
must  say  "Thy  will  be  done."  If  this  be  not  the  feeling  of  his  heart,  his 
supposed  assurance  is  nothing  but  delusion,  and  he  has  never  yet  asked 
so  as  to  receive. 

But  there  is  a  plausible,  and  in  the  view  of  some,  an  unanswerable  ob- 
jection to  all  this,  as  it  implies  that  a  person  may  and  ought,  for  love  to 
God,  to  be  willing  to  be  a  sinner,  and  an  enemy  to  God  forever,  if  this 
be  most  for  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  greatest  happiness  of  his  kingdom. 
This  is  thought  to  be  contrary  to  the  law,  and  all  the  commands  of  God, 
and  in  itself  absurd  and  impossible. 

If  I  am  not  much  mistaken,  most  of  the  objections  and  arguments,  if 
not  all  of  them  which  I  have  seen  oflered  against  this,  are  founded  on  a 
mistake,  or  a  supposition  which  is  not  true,  viz.  : — That  to  be  willing  to 
be  a  sinner,  in  this  case,  necessarily  implies  an  inclination  to  sin,  which 
is  actually  sinning,  from  love  to  God,  and  desire  that  he  may  be  glorified, 
this  being  what  God  requires!  If  I  could  be  convinced  there  were  any 
truth  in  this,  I  should  renounce  the  sentiment  as  false  and  dangerous. 
But  I  yet  think  directly  the  contrary  to  Ije  true ;   and  that  a  being  willing 


21 

to  be  a  sinner,  if  this  were  necessary  for  the  glory  of  God,  is  itself  an 
exercise  of  love  and  obedience  to  God ;  and  not  to  be  willing,  ou  this 
supposition,  would  be  itself  an  act  of  sin  and  rebellion.  If  the  dialogue 
which  you  mention  be  one  that  I  have  seen,  I  think  this  point  is  there 
proved  by  argument  which  cannot  be  confuted. 

God  has  revealed  that  it  is  his  will  that  some  of  our  neighbors  should 
be  given  up  to  sin  and  ruin  forever,  for  his  glory,  and  the  greatest  good 
of  his  kingdom.  It  is  granted  that  we  ought  to  acquiesce  in  this,  and 
be  willing  that  it  should  take  place,  in  as  many  instances,  and  under  those 
particular  instances  which  God  sees  will  best  answer  his  ends ;  that  such 
acquiescence  is  implied  in  love  to  God ;  and  therefore  implies  no  incli- 
nation to  sin,  or  to  think  favorable  of  it ;  but  the  contrary ;  and  that  the 
least  disposition  to  object,  and  oppose  this  known  will  of  God,  would  be 
an  act  of  sin,  and  rebellion  against  God.  And  if  it  be  as  necessary  that 
we  ourselves  should  be  given  up  to  endless  sin  and  ruin,  in  order  to  an- 
swer the  same  end,  as  that  our  neighbor  should  be  thus  given  up,  we 
must  consent,  and  be  willing,  on  this  supposition,  that  this  should  take 
place,  if  we  love  God  with  all  our  hearts,  and  our  neighbor  as  ourselves. 
And  so  long  as  we  continue  of  this  disposition,  we  obey  the  Divine 
law,  and  are  friends  to  God  and  holiness ;  and  cannot  fall  into  sin  and 
ruin  until  we  give  up  this  disposition  and  imbibe  the  contrary,  and  be- 
come unwilling  to  suffer  anything  for  the  glory  of  God.  In  this  view  of 
the  matter,  I  think,  it  appears  that  "It  does  not  involve  any  absurdity, 
that  a  person  ought  to  be  willing  to  be  fixed  in  a  state  of  eternal  enmity 
to  God,  from  a  principle  of  supreme  love  to  him,"  on  supposition  that 
this  be  necessary  for  his  glory.  This  is  so  far  from  being  an  absurdity, 
that  a  person  must  cease  to  love  God  supremely,  in  order  not  to  be  will- 
ing, on  this  supposition,  and  actuallj'^  turn  an  enemy  to  him. 

You  think,  Sir,  "It  may  be  the  will  of  God  to  suffer  events  to  take 
place  with  respect  to  us,  which  it  would  be  sinful  in  us  to  be  willing 
should  take  place,  with  respect  to  ourselves."  If  the  will  of  God  re- 
specting such  events  be  made  known  to  us,  it  cannot  be  sinful  in  us  to  be 
willing  they  should  take  place ;  otherwise  it  would  be  a  sin  for  us  to  say, 
"Thy  will  be  done,"  without  making  any  condition  or  reserve;  which  I 
believe  none  will  assert.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  our  indispensable  duty  to 
submit  to  the  known  will  of  God,  with  respect  to  every  event,  l)e  it  what 
it  may.  And  not  to  be  willing  it  should  take  place,  as  He  has  willed  it 
should,  is  opposition  to  God,  and  therefore  an  act  of  rebellion. 

Tlie  following  instance  is  brought  to  illustrate  this  position.  "  It  is  the 
will  of  God  to  suffer  the  Saints,  during  their  continuance  in  this  life,  to 
be  imperfect  in  holiness.  Yet  it  is  their  duty  to  be  perfect;  nor  ought 
they  to  be  willing  to  be  unholy  in  any  respect  or  degree ;  for  that  Avould 
be  a  willingness  to  transgress  the  divine  law,  and  would  be  sinful."  I 
am  pleased  with  this  instance,  because  I  thinlc  it  is  suited  to  illustrate  the 
point  in  view.  I  grant  it  is  the  duty  of  Saints  to  be  perfect  in  holiness; 
but  do  not  think  it  will  follow  from  this,  that  they  ought  not  to  l)e  Avill- 
ing  to  be  unholy  in  any  respect  or  degree,  or  that  such  willingness  would 


22 

be  sinful ;  but  tlie  contrary.  It  is  a  bolj'  will  or  choice,  and  not  to  be  will- 
inc:  to  be  sinful,  in  this  case,  would  be  a  transgression  of  the  Divine  law, 
and  therefore  sinful.  It  is,  iu  itself  considered,  desirable  to  be  perfectly 
holy  in  this  life ;  and  must  be  a  duty,  as  their  obligation  to  this  cannot 
be  made  to  cease.  But  it  being  the  known  will  of  God  that  they  shall 
not  be  perfectljf  holy  in  this  life ;  and  therefore  that  it  is,  on  the  whole, 
wisest  and  best,  most  for  his  glory,  and  the  general  good,  that  they 
should  be  imperfect  in  this  world ;  it  is  certainly  their  duty  to  acquiesce 
in  this,  and  be  willing  it  should  be  so,  and  say  "  Thy  will  be  done."  And 
this  willingness  to  be  imperfect  and  sinful,  in  this  case,  all  things  con- 
sidered, is  so  far  from  being  sinful,  that  it  is  a  holy  submission  to  the 
will  of  God ;  and  the  contrary  would  be  opposition  to  the  known  will  of 
God,  to  his  glory  and  the  general  good,  and  therefore  a  transgression  of 
the  Divine  law,  and  very  sinful.  It  is,  on  the  whole,  all  things  consid- 
ered, best,  and  most  desirable  that  they  should  not  be  perfectly  holy  in 
this  life;  otherwise  this  would  not  be  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God. 
And  not  to  be  willing  that  should  take  place,  which  is  on  the  wliole  best, 
most  desirable,  and  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God,  is  an  unreasonable, 
wicked  disposition,  and  directly  opposed  to  God.  And  to  be  willing  to 
be  imperfect  in  this  state  of  trial,  is  no  part  of  that  imperfection,  nor 
has  it  any  tendency  to  make  them  imperfect;  but  the  contrary,  as  it  is 
directly  opposed  to  all  sin,  and  is,  as  has  been  observed,  a  holy  volition, 
a  holy  submission  to  the  will  of  God. 

The  spii'its  of  the  just  now  made  perfect,  acquiesce  in  it,  it  is  perfect- 
ly agreeable  to  their  inclination  and  will,  that  they  were  imperfect  in 
this  life,  and  that  all  the  redeemed  should  be  so ;  and  this  acquiescence 
in  the  will  of  God,  respecting  this,  is  so  far  from  being  sinful,  that  it  is 
part  of  their  perfect  holiness,  and  essential  to  it.  And  what  reason  can 
be  given  why  this  same  disposition  in  the  Saints  in  this  life,  is  not  a  holy 
disposition?  This  is  easily  applied  to  the  point  in  dispute;  and  I  am 
mistaken  if  it  do  not  serve  to  illustrate  it,  and  obviate  every  objection 
made  to  a  being  willing  to  be  sinful  forever,  on  supposition  this  be  the 
will  of  God,  or  most  for  his  glory,  and  the  greater  happiness  of  his 
kingdom. 

You  say.  Sir,  "I  believe  that  it  is  naturally  impossible  for  any  moral 
agent  to  be  willing  to  be  separated  from  all  good,  to  all  evil."  I  should 
believe  this  too,  if  I  thought  self  love  was  essential  to  a  moral  Agent, 
and  that  it  is  right  to  exercise  this  to  the  highest  possible  degree,  and 
wrong  to  suppress  or  counteract  it  in  any  instance.  Yea,  I  should  believe 
more,  viz.  : — that  it  is  naturally  impossible  for  a  moral  agent  to  give  up 
the  least  deyree  of  personal  good,  or  sufter  any  evil,  for  the  sake  of  any 
public  good,  however  great.  But  universal  disinterested  benevolence 
will  give  up  personal  good;  and  be  willing  to  suffer  jjersonal  evil  for  the 
sake  of  a  greater  public  good,  and  for  the  same  reason  that  it  will  give  up 
one  degree  of  private  good,  for  a  greater  public  good,  it  will  be  willing 
to  be  separated  from  all  personal  good,  to  all  evil,  if  necessary  to  pro- 
mote a  proportionable  greater  public  good.     And  it  appears  to  me,  natu- 


23 

raUy  impossible,  or  impossible  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  it  should  do 
otherwise,  unless  it  be  defective,  or  counteracted  hy  self  love. 

St.  Paul's  wish  (Rom.  9.  3.)  has  been  an  eyesore  to  many.  They  have 
thought  themselves  sure  that  he  could  not  mean  what  his  words  naturally 
impart ;  consequently  have  set  their  invention  to  work  to  find  out  some 
other  meaning.  Most  of  which  invented,  forced  meanings  are,  I  think, 
so  low  and  flat  as  to  be  unbecoming  an  inspired  xlpostle,  and  really  cast 
reproach  on  the  sacred  oracles.  The  most  plausible  of  these,  perhaps,  is 
that  of  Mr.  Glass,  which  is  wholly  built  on  the  original  word,  translated, 
I  could  vjish,  not  being  in  the  optative  mood;  but  in  the  past  tense  of  the 
indicative.  But  Grotius,  who  was  skilled  in  the  Greek  above  most  others, 
says  it  is  common  for  the  Greeks  to  use  a  word  so,  when  it  is  to  be 
understood  in  the  optative  sense,  of  which  there  is  an  instance  it  Acts 
25.  22.  And  Glasse's  sense  is  so  low,  that  it  appears  to  me  to  come  to  very 
little,  and  to  be  unworthy  of  the  Apostle  Paul ;  and  exhorts  the  true  spirit 
and  force  of  expression.  The  words,  taken  in  the  most  easy  and  natural 
sense,  in  which  Calvin  and  others  have  taken  them,  do  strongly  express 
the  feeling  and  exercise  of  true  benevolence,  which  St.  Paul  ought  to  have 
had,  and  to  express  on  such  an  occasion ;  and  which  he  certainly  did 
profess  in  a  very  high  degree,  who  sought  not  his  own  profit,  but  the 
profit  of  many,  that  they  might  be  saved. 

Calvin,  I  suppose,  is  not  cited  as  an  authority,  but  only  to  show  the 
propriety  of  their  being  called  Semi-Calvinists,  who  do  not  agree  with 
him  in  this  sentiment. 

Wishing  we  may  each  of  us  be  led  into  all  important  in  truth,  I  am, 

Dear  Sir,  Avith  high  esteem,  and  much  afiection,  your  ol)lige(l,  huml:)le 

servant, 

S.  HOPKINS. 
Roger  Sherman,  Esq. 


ROGER  SHERMAN  TO  SAMUEL  HOPKINS. 

New  Haven,  October,  1790. 
Dear  Sir  : — 

I  received  your  letter  of  the  2d  August  last,  and  am  obliged  to  you  for 
the  observations  it  contains.  I  think  there  is  no  material  ditt'ereuce  of 
sentiment  between  us  except  on  the  last  point.  I  am  not  convinced  by 
what  you  have  wrote  on  that  subject  tliat  my  former  opinion  was  wrong; 
but  I  don'i  know  that  I  can  say  much  more  to  support  it  than  I  did  be- 
fore. 

I  believe  Ave  do  not  differ  at  all  in  opinion  respecting  that  general 
benevolence  wherein  true  virtue  consists ;  Avhich  you  admit  includes  a 
regard  to  our  own  greatest  good  and  happiness,  and  that  regard  I  call  an 
exercise  of  love  to  ourselves.  When  I  said  that  self  love  and  love  to 
others  were  distinct  afl'ections,  I  only  meant  that  they  Avere  exercises  of 


.  24 

the  same  kind  of  affection  towards  different  objects,  viz.,  ourselves  and 
others. 

I  do  not  fully  understand  the  force  of  your  observations  on  what  I 
said  respecting  the  ground  or  reason  why  self  love  in  a  being  destitute 
of  general  benevolence  is  the  source  of  moral  evil,  viz.,  "That  this 
arises  from  the  want  of  a  good  moral  taste,  or  spiritual  discernment, 
Avhich  occasions  the  person  to  place  his  happiness  in  wrong  objects." 
You  do  not  here  distinguish  between  occasion  and  positive  cause  though 
you  make  a  material  distinction  between  them  in  your  sermons  on  "Sin 
the  occasion  of  great  good."  President  Edwards  I  think  has  illustrated 
this  point  in  his  answer  to  Dr.  Taylor  on  oi'iginal  sin,  and  in  a  sermon 
published  with  his  life,  on  the  enquiry,  why  natural  men  are  enemies  to 
God.  He  supposes  original  righteousness  in  man  was  a  supernatural 
principle  which  was  withdrawn  on  his  first  transgression,  and  his  natural 
principles  of  agency  remaining,  were  exercised  wrong,  and  his  affections 
set  on  wrong  objects  in  consequence  of  such  Avithdrawment.  The  will  and 
affections  are  the  powers  of  agency,  and  the  exercises  of  them  are  holy 
or  sinful,  according  to  the  objects  chosen  or  beloved,  or  according  as 
their  exercises  agree  or  disagree  with  the  divine  law.  Moral  good  and 
evil  consist  in  exercises  and  not  in  dormant  principles ;  the  heart  is  the 
seat  not  only  of  sin  but  of  holiness  according  as  it  is  differently  affected. 
Your  observations  on  self  love  in  persons  destitute  of  general  benevo- 
lence are  not  opposed  to  anything  I  meant  to  express  in  my  letter. 

You  say,  "that  love  to  being  in  general  necessarily  regards  and  wishes 
the  greatest  possible  happiness  to  him  who  exercises  this  love,  this  is  not 
indeed  self  love,  which  is  a  regard  to  one's  self  as  self,  and  as  distinguished 
from  all  others,  and  to  no  other  being;  but  it  is  the  same  disinterested 
affection  which  wishes  the  highest  happiness  to  every  individual  included 
in  being  in  general  and  therefore  to  himself,  as  necessarily  included  in 
the  whole,  and  one  among  others."  There  appears  to  me  to  be  a  little 
ambiguity  in  those  words  as  self  and  what  follows.  I  suppose  that  the 
good  and  happiness  of  ourselves  and  each  individual  being  who  is  a 
proper  object  of  happiness,  is  individually  to  be  regarded,  loved  and 
sought  as  an  ultimate  end,  or  what  is  desirable  for  its  own  sake  as  a 
real  good.  "Man's  chief  end  is  to  glorify  God,  and  enjoy  him  forever." 
Therefore  when  a  person  seeks  his  own  highest  good  and  happiness  in 
the  enjoyment  of  God,  and  in  connection  with  his  glory,  he  answers  the 
end  of  his  creation.  Those  texts  which  you  cited  to  prove  that  self  love 
is  sinful,  I  suppose  are  not  to  be  taken  absolutely  to  condemn  all  love  to 
self,  but  such  only  as  is  opposed  to,  or  unconnected  with  love  to  others, 
as  appears  from  Phil.  2.  4.  Look  not  every  man  on  his  own  things 
but  evei'y  man  also  on  the  the  things  of  others.  No  man  ever  yet  hated 
his  own  flesh  but  nourisiteth  it  and  cherisheth  it.  Our  own  temporal  as  well 
as  spiritual  good  may  be  lawfully  sought  and  enjoyed,  and  our  sensitive 
appetites  gratified,  so  that  it  l)e  not  done  in  a  manner  or  degree 
prohibited  by  law.  "Every  creature  of  God  is  good  and  nothing  to  be 
refused  if  it  be  received  with  thanksgiving,  etc." 


25 

I  think  yon  use  the  term  self  love  in  the  narrower  sense  than  it  is 
used  in  general  by  otliers ;  and  -when  pious  persons  find  in  tliemselves 
those  desires  and  wishes  of  their  own  good  and  liappiness,  whicli  I 
consider  as  inseparable  from  a  moral  agent,  and  which  you  admit  are 
lawful  as  flowing  from  general  benevolence,  or  as  a  part  of  it,  when 
they  find  self  love  condemned  by  that  general  term,  it  creates  in  their 
minds  groundless  uneasiness  and  doubts  as  to  their  good  estate.  Though 
perhaps  a  critical  attention  to  your  definition  and  distinctions  might 
prevent  this. 

As  your  observations  on  the  other  point  have  not  removed  my  dlfli- 
culties,  I  will  make  a  few  remai*ks  on  that  subject. 

1.  The  glory  of  God  and  his  happiness  do  not  depend  on  the  will  of 
his  creatures.  Acts  17.  25.  Neither  is  luorshipped  by  men's  hands  as 
though  he  needed  anything.  Job  35.  7.  If  thou  he  righteous,  what  givest 
thou  him,  etc.  His  goodness  is  his  glory  and  that  is  displayed  or  mani- 
fested in  his  doing  good.  Exod.  33.  18,  19.  And  he  said  I  beseech  thee, 
shevj  me  thy  glory.  And.  he  said,  I  will  make  my  goodness  pass  before  thee, 
etc. 

2.  None  of  his  rational  creatures  are  miserable  but  for  their  own 
fault.  He  infiicts  punishment,  not  in  a  way  of  mei'e  sovereignty,  but  as 
a  righteous  Judge  or  Governor ;  and  for  the  general  good.  He  gathers 
out  of  his  Kingdom  all  things  that  offend  and  do  iniquity. 

3.  No  person  who  has  a  holy  love  to  God,  can  consistent  with  his 
will  declared  in  the  gospel,  be  finally  miserable ;  and  their  self  denial 
for  his  glory,  and  all  their  trials  and  afilictions  in  this  life  work  together 
for  their  best  good,  and  work  out  for  them  an  eternal  weight  of  glory. 

4.  The  duties  of  self  denial  and  sufl'ering  in  the  cause  of  God,  are 
compatible  only  to  this  state  of  trial — and  the  precepts  which  require 
this,  appear  to  me  to  be  expressly  liiriited  to  suflering  in  this  life,  and 
eternal  life  is  promised  as  an  encouragement  to  it ;  therefore  I  see  no 
ground  to  extend  them  by  reason  or  analagy  to  the  point  in  question. 
Mat.  19.  29,  John  12.  25,  Luke  18.  25,  etc.,  Mark  10.  29,  30. 

5.  No  person  who  is  to  be  a  subject  of  everlasting  misery  is  ever 
willing  to  endure  it ;  l)ut  it  is  the  providential  will  of  God  to  sufl"er  them 
to  hate  him  and  blaspheme  his  name  because  of  their  torment ;  therefore 
their  willingness  to  sufler,  is  not  necessary  for  the  manifestation  of  his 
glory  in  their  punishment.  And  it  would  involve  an  inconsistency  to 
suppose  any  person  to  be  willing  to  submit  to  the  providential  will  of 
God,  in  all  the  circumstances  of  his  damnation,  umiriUingness  to  sufler  and 
enmity  to  (Jod  on  account  of  it,  being  material  circumstances.  You 
mention  the  third  petition  in  the  Lord's  pi-ayer,  "Thy  vnU  he  done  on 
earth  as  it  is  in  heaven,"  as  a  proof  that  absolute  submission  to  the  will  of 
God  is  a  duty.  I  admit  that  (iod's  perceptive  Avill  ought  to  be  obeyi'd 
in  all  things,  and  his  providential  will  submitted  to  as  far  as  it  is  nnule 
known  by  revelation,  or  the  event;  but  no  particular  person  Avhile  in  a 
state  of  probation  can  know  that  it  is  tlie  providential  will  of  (!od  that 
he  shall  finally  2)eri.sh,  but  he  knows  that  it  is  his  perceptive   will,  that 


26 

lio  shall  turn  and  live.  And  for  persons  wlio  doubt  of  tlicir  good  estate, 
to  put  it  to  trial  by  svipposing  a  case  that  never  can  happen  if  they  have 
any  degree  of  true  love  to  God,  or  if  they  ever  comply  with  the  require- 
ments of  the  gospel ;  and  which  it  is  certain  their  hearts  never  will  be 
reconciled  to,  if  it  should  happen,  would  only  tend  to  fill  their  minds 
with  greater  perplexity  and  disquietude.  True  Christians  are  assured, 
that  no  temptation  (or  trial)  shall  happen  to  them  but  what  they  shall 
be  enabled  to  bear ;  and  that  the  grace  of  Christ  shall  be  sufficient  for 
them ;  but  no  such  gracious  promise  of  support  is  made  to  any  who 
shall  be  the  subjects  of  damnation,  therefore  a  willingness  to  sufter 
this,  is  not  a  trial  required  of  a  true  Christian.  The  angels  in  heaven 
do  God's  will,  but  we  have  no  intimation  that  they  are  required  to  be 
willing  to  fall  from  their  holy  and  happy  state. 

As  to  your  observations  on  the  Saints'  imperfections  in  this  life,  I  shall 
only  remark,  that  I  allow  that  they  ought  to  approve  whatever  is  ordered 
or  permitted  by  God  concerning  them  as  most  holy  and  wise ;  but  not 
their  own  conduct  in  being  unholy  or  sinful  in  any  degree. 

As  to  the  submission  of  the  awakened  humbled  sinner  to  the  divine 
sovereignty,  I  admitted  that  a  sinner  ought  to  approve  the  law  of  God, 
as  holy,  just  and  good  in  the  threatening  endless  misery  to  sinners ;  but 
this  is  consistent  with  their  hoping  in  his  mercy.  The  convinced  publi- 
can prayed,  "-God  he  merciful  to  me,  a  sinner."  I  suppose  that  the  divine 
sovereignty  is  the  greatest  encouragement  that  a  convinced  sinner  has  or 
can  have,  to  hope  for  mercy.  That  a  God  of  infinite  goodness  can 
(through  the  atonement)  have  mercy  on  whom  he  will,  consistent  with 
the  honor  of  his  law  and  government  and  of  all  his  perfections,  is  a 
much  better  ground  of  hope,  than  if  the  sinner  was  left  to  his  own  will ; 
but  I  don't  see  that  this  includes  in  it  a  willingness  to  be  damned,  though 
the  convinced  sinner  has  a  sense  of  his  just  desert  of  damnation,  yet  he 
is  invited  and  required  to  turn  and  live. 

St.  Paul's  wish,  Rom.  9.  3,  taken  literally  (as  translated)  I  think  can't 
be  vindicated. 

1.  Because  it  would  have  been  opposite  to  the  revealed  will  of  God 
concerning  him,  he  being  a  true  Saint,  could  not  be  accursed  from 
Christ. 

2.  It  could  have  l)een  of  no  use  to  his  brethren — his  damnation  could 
not  atone  for  their  sins ;  and  there  was  a  sufficient  atonement  made  by 
Jesus  Christ.  I  think  all  that  he  intended  was  to  express  in  strong 
terms  his  great  affection  and  concern  for  that  people  and  not  that  he  did 
or  could  really  wish  damnation  to  himself  for  their  sakes.  Dr.  Samuel 
Clark  on  the  place  says,  "The  expression  is  highly  figurative  and  affec- 
tionate— But  his  intention  was  not  to  wish  himself  subject  to  the 
eternal  wrath  of  God,  which  is  absurd  aud  impossible." 

It  still  appears  to  me  that  no  moral  agent  ever  was  or  can  be  willing 
to  be  damned,  and  that  no  such  thing  is  required  by  the  divine  law  or  the 
gospel.  If  a  person  could  be  willing  to  be  forever  abandoned  to  sin  and 
misery,  he  must  be  so  lost  to  any  sense  of  good  or  happiness,  as  not  to 


27 

be  capable  of  any  regard  to  the  glory  of  God,  or  the  good  and  happiness 
of  the  moral  system ;  for  if  he  could  take  pleasure  in  these,  he  would 
not  be  wholly  deprived  of  happiness. 

The  bad  tendency  of  this  doctrine  if  it  be  not  well  founded,  will  be  : — 

1.  To  give  uneasiness  to  pious  minds  who  may  believe  it  upon  the 
authority  of  those  whom  they  think  more  knowing  than  themselves,  but 
yet  they  can't  find  their  hearts  reconciled  to  it. 

2.  Pious  orthodox  Christians  who  think  it  an  error  will  be  prejudiced 
against  the  books  that  contain  it,  however  orthodox  and  useful  in  other 
respects,  and  will  scruple  the  lawfulness  of  keeping  them  in  their  houses, 
or  any  way  encouraging  the  spread  of  such  books,  lest  they  should  be 
guilty  of  propagating  dangerous  errors. 

3.  It  will  give  the  enemies  of  truth  occasion  to  speak  reproachfully 
of  the  authors  of  such  books,  and  prejudice  the  minds  of  people  against 
them,  and  so  obstruct  their  usefulness.  Therefore  I  wish  you  to  cut  off 
occasion,  from  those  who  may  seek  occasion. 

I  am,  &c. 

ROGER  SHERMAN. 


:er 


LOS  ANGELES  CAL.FOrS  a  on*.  ^°^  ^51388 


iiS 


